Debates of Oct. 31st, 1995

Social Program Reform

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite the announcement in the last government budget, the Prime Minister has stated on a number of occasions that there was no question of cutting old age pensions. Despite the Prime Minister's prereferendum assurances, however, seniors are concerned.

My question is for the Prime Minister. When will he make known the contents of his planned reform of old age pensions?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I was very clear in this House prior to the referendum and I am still clear after the referendum: we have no intention of cutting the federal pension benefits being received by those who are already retired-as I have said, and as I say again-either in November or in the next budget.

I was very clear before the referendum, and I am as clear today.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister reiterate today the commitment made on numerous occasions during the referendum campaign that his government will not cut the old age pensions of future recipients? I would like some clarification concerning "future recipients".

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have never mentioned future recipients. We are speaking of those receiving pensions. That is always what we have said, that we had no intention of changing the plan for those in receipt of old age pensions.

We have said that the federal government needs to ensure, over the long term, that the plan will be available for people who will reach retirement later, because everyone feels this is a plan requiring adjustments. There are more Canadians than in the past, proportionally to the pension, and we need to look to the long term. We have spoken of reform for the years 2005 and 2010, and not of the immediate future.

Canadian Unity

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last night this country came within a hair's breadth of breaking apart. Fortunately the no side scraped through, but it was thanks to the last-minute efforts of the Canadian public, not to the strategy of the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister and the no side strategists woefully underestimated Quebec's deep desire for change, and up until 10 days ago were still trying to sell the status quo with a little administrative tinkering. These gross miscalculations almost cost us the country.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Three months ago the Prime Minister did not have an adequate plan to keep this country together. He did not have one last night. Does he have one today?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr., Speaker, we had a plan and the people of Canada responded well to it. We had a close referendum, which was the expression of the will of the people of Quebec. Their views were expressed. It was closer than we expected. We wanted more.

I know the leader of the opposition wanted to win. There was no doubt in his mind that he wanted to win, which is normal in such a contest. But we won.

I made a speech on Tuesday in which I said I was in favour of certain changes. I will bring about these changes very quickly. As far as the will of the people of Canada is concerned, yes, they have helped a lot. A lot of members on this side were in Montreal with the people of Canada. However, I realize that during all that

campaign the leader of the third party did not do much to help us to win.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Prime Minister learned a thing from last night.

Quebecers last night registered a massive demand for change. While Quebecers said no to separation by the narrowest of margins, both sides were giving a massive no to the status quo. Yet in his speech last night and in his remarks today, all the Prime Minister has to offer are the same old meaningless clichés about change that almost put this country over the edge.

Will the Prime Minister say today what changes he is going to make in the federal system to make it work for all Canadians? Will he be fresh, clear, and specific instead of tiresome, vague, and meaningless?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in a federation like Canada we have to talk with the premiers too, who during the campaign, contrary to the leader of the third party, did everything they could to help me and everybody on the no side to win.

I had the chance to talk with the premiers yesterday afternoon. We discussed a certain possibility of change, not necessarily all constitutional. They are willing to work with us. That is the way to do that, which is not what the leader of the third party has done. Rather than unite with everybody to give a front of a united Canada for the referendum, the leader of the third party was always out trying to score some cheap political points.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Shameful. Mr. Speaker, if I wanted to score cheap political points, I would know where to go.

A real agenda for change that would address the demands of Quebec and other provinces has to have two characteristics: it must be within the federal government's ability to implement without constitutional wrangling, and it must be capable of commanding support among all the provinces, including Quebec. Reform has a list of 20 such changes. We call them the new confederation proposals.

My question will appeal to the ethics of the government. If we were to put these new confederation proposals into a brown envelope and leave them outside the office of the Deputy Prime Minister, would the government be willing to steal them so that Canadians could at least have some plan to address the demand for change in this country?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the third party had been in Quebec he would have realized that nobody in Quebec voted to dismantle medicare, free medical care for everybody in Quebec. Nobody voted for that. Nobody voted for the agenda of the Reform Party to destroy the social safety net that exists in Canada.

What the leader of the third party is trying to do at this moment is sell its very right wing agenda, to the right of Gingrich. He is using this occasion to pass his own political agenda rather than arguing for the survival of the country.

Social Program Reform

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Last week, the CSN made public the minister's bill on unemployment insurance reform. It indicates that, the more workers need unemployment insurance, the less help they will get from it. The rate of benefits paid to the unemployed will in fact be reduced according to the number of weeks they have drawn benefits in the past. The minister refused to comment before the referendum.

Now that the referendum is over, will the minister acknowledge that the two-tiered unemployment insurance plan, which he claimed last spring to have rejected, is sneaking back into his bill and that seasonal workers will be hard hit by his reform?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, whether it was before the vote for Canada last night or after the vote for Canada, the reality stays the same.

What the CSN put forward has no relation to the kinds of proposals the government is working on. Any documents they are dealing with they are conjuring.

As the Prime Minister said, I have not yet presented my recommendations to the cabinet. When those recommendations are presented and approved after further discussions with some of the provinces, we will be very happy to present them in the House. The hon. member will be able to see for herself exactly what is in them. Until then, I would recommend that the hon. member not buy the kind of stuff the CSN was putting out last week.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bill like others that coincide with leaks from his department.

Will the minister acknowledge that the regions whose economy depends largely on forestry, fishing and tourism will be the hardest

hit by his reform and that he will turn them into second class regions peopled by second class unemployed?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal about the need for change during the debates of the last several weeks.

Perhaps the most important change we need to make is to get ourselves into having a job system for the 21st century that will reach out to the many people who have been unemployed for long periods of time and try to create the framework, the context and the resources to help them get good jobs to help economic development in the regions.

One way we can make that change is to shift from an unemployment insurance program designed 50 years ago to an employment insurance program designed for now and the next century. The real interest of the high unemployment areas is to get a good job creation system in the country. That is what we intend to do.

The Constitution

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been proven that Canadians from sea to sea want absolute equality.

In the Confederation of tomorrow what guarantee could the Prime Minister give Canadians that every province and every individual will be treated equally?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in 1980 we put in the Constitution a charter of rights that gave equality to every Canadian.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

With that guarantee then, Mr. Speaker, why is the Prime Minister threatening to open up the Constitution again? There is no support for it across the country.

He has said during this debate: "We will make the changes that are needed". Whatever that code means, whatever the changes include, could the Prime Minister guarantee to us that there will be no special status for anybody? Just say no.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there are in the Constitution provisions that are not the same for everybody. For example, there is a proposition coming from Newfoundland at this time, which has a system of education that is different from the ones in Ontario and Alberta.

Some provisions in the Constitution guarantee forever that there will be four seats for the citizens of the province of P.E.I., even if the proportion of the voters is much lower than some in Toronto. There is also a provision that one can argue does not guarantee absolute equality, but I think it is right for the province of P.E.I. to keep its four seats. It was among the first to join Confederation.

Social Program Reform

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Through his UI reform bill leaked by the CSN last week, the minister, far from helping young people, is set to increase very substantially the requirements that first time applicants must meet in order to qualify for the support that the UI program should provide. The minister refused to confirm anything before the referendum.

Now that the referendum is over, will the minister admit that his bill will increase from 20 to 26 weeks the minimum number of weeks of work required to qualify for benefits and exclude thousands of young people from unemployment insurance, and that the minister's new program will be one more obstacle to their access to the labour force?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said several times now, the proposed employment insurance legislation has not been finalized. It has not been presented to cabinet. The hon. member would be well advised not to pay attention to any documents various groups have of what they think we will be presenting.

The hon. member should be looking at the fact that since taking office the government has introduced major new employment programs for young people. This year alone we will provide funding for partnerships with the private sector and with various school boards, including many in Quebec, to provide a brand new opportunity for over 25,000 young people to get the experience of moving from school to work, the vital bridge between formal education and work experience education.

We are committed to helping young people. We are not only committed but the actions we have initiated have shown how successful they can be.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last year, the changes made by the government raised from 777,000 to 800,000 the number of welfare recipients in Quebec, so you can understand why we are concerned.

Does the minister recognize that his reform will make it much harder for women to return to the labour force after a long absence, as they will no longer be able to rely on UI for support between often precarious jobs?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, there are two forms of reply. First, I would point out to the hon. member that his facts are wrong. The reality is that the statistics we have from the Government of Quebec show the numbers of people on welfare have dropped over the last three months, not increased.

Second, I would point out that one of the very strong recommendations from the House of Commons committee, which we are listening to very carefully, is to provide for improved measures for women who want to come back into the workforce. We intend to live up to that commitment.

The Constitution

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for two very long years now we have watched the Prime Minister and the government overspend by $80 billion. We have watched them snooze while people fear for their safety on the streets. We have watched them sleepwalk to the edge of a cliff in Quebec. It is time for a wake up call over there.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Are we doomed to repeat the endless distinct society debate that 30 years of negotiations could not resolve? If so, how does he plan to convince nine other premiers that it is in their best interest to sign on to inequality?